Curtailing Criticism

Summary

[E]vidence of self-censorship by NGOs in fear of the
repercussions of the law has meant that the value of a vibrant civil society in
deepening democracy is progressively being eroded.

—Ugandan
NGO Briefing for the Minister of Internal Affairs, August 11, 2009

If your research raises a flag about people in power in
this country, and how they are getting money out of this country, you are at
serious risk. If you preach human rights, you are anti-development, an economic
saboteur. You are not going to talk about land, oil, and good governance. This
is just the beginning, but the tensions have been accumulating.

—NGO staff member working on
land issues, July 10, 2012.

We must come together. Anything that is targeting
NGOs—for human rights, for oil, for LGBT rights—we must come
together and fight for the space to discuss our views. Closing that space will
affect us all.

—NGO staff member working on
oil issues, June 28, 1012

In the wake of the 2011 elections that returned President
Yoweri Kaguta Museveni to office, the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM)
is already looking ahead to elections in 2016. In office since 1986, President
Museveni is widely believed to be gearing up for yet another term. Political
tensions are running high and public criticism of government has escalated
since the elections. To better control this environment the ruling
party’s high ranking government officials are increasingly scrutinizing
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the impact they have on public
perceptions of governance and state management of public funds.

In the last two years government officials at both the
national and local levels have deployed an array of tactics to intimidate and
obstruct the work of NGOs in certain sectors. The methods used range from
closing meetings, reprimanding NGOs for their work, and demanding retractions
or apologies, as well as occasional resort to threats, harassment, physical
violence and heavy-handed bureaucratic interference to impede the registration
and operations of NGOs. Of recent, the increasing use of these tactics is
obstructing the work and impact of NGOs and, more broadly, obstructs
Ugandans’ rights to free expression, association, and assembly.

Civil society actors working on governance, human rights,
land, oil, and other sensitive issues are the main targets of these attacks,
apparently because they are viewed as threatening to undermine the
regime’s political and financial interests. At the same time the
government’s hostility to, and harassment of, Uganda’s lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and its leadership continues
unabated. Government officials demonizing homosexuality are targeting a
vulnerable community and deliberately misinforming the public, stirring hatred
and diverting foreign donor attention from deeply-rooted governance problems
and growing domestic frustration with President Museveni and his party’s
patronage politics.

There are a large number—perhaps thousands—of
NGOs operating in Uganda. Some sectors enjoy significant latitude. For
instance, groups focusing on small-scale development or service delivery
programs have relative freedom to operate. These organizations are often
promoted by government officials as examples to emulate. Service delivery NGOs
are often critical to ensuring that the poor have access to low cost medicines
and rural health care, but as some analysts point out this category of NGOs,
including those focusing on health and access to HIV treatment, ultimately end
up compensating for government failure to deliver services in those sectors.

Evidence-based research and advocacy NGOs focusing on the
more controversial issues—transparency in the oil sector, compensation
and reparations for land acquisitions and sales, political and legal reform,
and protection of human rights, including the rights of LGBT people—have
decreasing room to maneuver. Ultimately those groups that advocate for change
while documenting governance failures, mismanagement of public assets, and the
ways that government officials profit from foreign investment at the expense of
local communities are at the most risk of state interference.

Drawing on in-depth interviews with 41 NGO actors,
government officials, and donors in Kampala, Uganda, this report documents a
range of government threats and attacks on NGO meetings, research, and advocacy,
and illustrates the ways in which those actions inhibit NGO operating space and
lead to self-censorship among civil society members.

Uganda’s constitution contains strong provisions on
freedom of expression and association, and further guarantees the right to
engage in peaceful activities to influence government policies through civic
organizations. Despite such provisions, and international and regional treaties
to which Uganda is party, the regulatory framework for the non-profit sector,
which is overseen by the government’s NGO Board, fails to create an
enabling environment for all NGOs to work.

In the current structure NGO regulation, under the auspices
of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, is treated as a possible national security
threat, with officials from the intelligence community legally mandated to
monitor NGO work. Current regulations applicable to NGOs are incompatible with
constitutional and international protections of fundamental rights, and include
provisions that both obstruct and confuse NGOs seeking to be in compliance with
the law and leave them no opportunity to appeal unlawful or arbitrary decisions
via the courts. The “NGO Policy,” a document negotiated in 2010
between government and civil society, is a relatively positive instrument but
carries no clear legal weight.

Hostile government rhetoric directed at civil society from
ministers has intensified in the last year—with certain government
officials allegedly threatening NGOs with deregistration. Increasingly lower
level district officials are following high ranking leaders to criticize NGO
activities. This is particularly true of resident district commissioners (RDCs)
who are directly appointed to each district by the president, district internal
security officers (DISOs), and in some instances regional and district level
police commanders who threaten and obstruct the work of NGOs in parts of the
country. DISOs have arbitrarily detained NGO members or activists for short
periods of time, prevented meetings from taking place, or demanded bribes in
exchange for granting permission to NGOs to access communities for the purpose
of conducting research.

Groups whose work focuses on issues related to the
environment, land, and oil face increasing obstruction. Land tenure remains a
very contentious issue and the government has been particularly aggressive
towards NGO activity that could threaten government and private company
investments. NGOs seeking to educate the public about land issues and rights
have been subjected to threats of deregistration, accusations of
“economic sabotage,” and arrest. Organizations working on good
governance and corruption have had meetings interrupted and canceled as they
have tried to carry out citizen education and advocacy campaigns and in some
cases have had their members detained for their activities.

There has been a sustained attack by the government, both in
rhetoric and practice, on the rights of LGBT people that has escalated in recent
years. This has been highly controversial and sparked significant debate
between various government actors and bilateral donors. Given the
public’s frustrations with the ruling party leadership over rapid
inflation and corruption among other concerns since the February 2011
elections, many see the government’s increasing focus on the alleged
threat of homosexuality as a facile populist strategy to gain support. This is
profoundly dangerous for the LGBT community, which is vulnerable to public
harassment and violence.

The office of the Minister of State for Ethics and Integrity
has been leading Uganda’s aggressively homophobic agenda and violating
NGOs’ rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly. The
minister has focused his attack on human rights work which supports the rights
of LGBT people, and has closed meetings and trainings, threatened to deregister
groups for their work on LGBT rights, and attempted to have some LGBT
leadership arrested—despite having no legal powers to carry out these
measures, and in clear contravention of Uganda’s own laws and obligations
under international human rights laws. He has also used “the promotion of
homosexuality”—a spurious claim—as justification for
his campaign against the NGO sector as a whole. He has suggested that the
legitimate pursuit of the rights of LGBT people is a conspiracy aimed at
destroying the country. In doing so he has painted an inaccurate and
inflammatory picture of LGBT communities and human rights activism in Uganda.

Given the increasingly challenging operating environment NGO
staff and representatives express serious concerns about their ability to
research and advocate on controversial issues and protect their employees.
Human Rights Watch is concerned that as the president and government leadership
face increasing public scrutiny of his long tenure in office, government
hostility towards NGOs will mount. This could lead to a reduction in research
and advocacy on key issues by local groups and increased threats to their
staff. NGO representatives told Human Rights Watch that they fear they will not
be able to carry out their mandates due to the hostile environment and
acknowledge self-censorship in order to maintain some level of operation and
employment of staff.

Uganda’s NGO Board is currently seeking funding from
Western donors to facilitate its work. While many in civil society told Human
Rights Watch that they are aware of the funding shortfalls at the NGO Board,
they cautioned any engagement that emboldened the board to restrict NGO work or
bind the sector in endless red tape. Recent negative communications from the board,
particularly ordering an NGO not to be involved in “politics” or
attempting to bar civil society from working in “loose coalitions,”
illustrate these concerns.

Human Rights Watch calls on the government of Uganda to
change and improve its terms of engagement with all NGOs, especially research
and advocacy groups working on sensitive or controversial subjects. Instead of
viewing the sector as a security threat the government should seek to create an
enabling operational environment for NGOs. Any administrative requirements
should be fair and proportionate to their legitimate goal, supportive of the
role of NGOs, and implemented independently, impartially, and
non-discriminately by the NGO Board. There should be public debate on
disagreements between the government and NGOs over their research findings or
policy and NGOs should not be threatened with deregistration.

To create a positive environment for NGOs and human rights
work, the laws governing NGOs should be amended to comply with international
law, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and Public Order Management Bill should be
thrown out of parliament, and no attempts to introduce provisions of the
Anti-Homosexuality Bill through other legislation, such as via amendments to
the penal code, should be undertaken. The government should rein in hostile
rhetoric by any official actors and publicly support the essential role of
civil society in a society based on human rights and rule of law.
Uganda’s international partners should actively voice their concerns
regarding threats to civil society and encourage the Ugandan government to
uphold freedom of expression and association at every turn.

Recommendations

To the President, the Government of Uganda, and NRM
Officials

Facilitate a positive working environment for NGOs by
improving the government’s terms of engagement with civil society
and reining in hostile rhetoric by any government actor.

Use public opportunities by government spokespersons at
all levels to reinforce the message that NGO work—including work
that engages with good governance, human rights, corruption, oil, and
public sector management—is essential to a democratic society and is
supported by the government, particularly the cabinet and the
president’s office.

Institute a clear public policy of not seeking the
dissolution of NGOs and ensure that dissolution or deregistration is a
sanction which can only be imposed in extraordinary cases clearly defined
in legislation and as determined as appropriate by a court.

Publicly reprimand government officials or employees who
threaten NGO deregistration.

Thoroughly investigate any cases of unlawful interference,
harassment, or intimidation of NGOs, human rights defenders, or civil
society activists and hold accountable those responsible for such abuses,
including ministers, resident district commissioners and their deputies,
Internal Security Organisation officers, and police.

Support the amendment of the NGO Act and Regulations to
create an enabling environment for NGOs, including removing the NGO Board
from under the auspices of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, excluding
intelligence agencies from being members of the board, and including
representation for the NGO community on the board membership.

Support repealing the colonial-era article 145
of the penal code, which criminalizes “carnal knowledge against the
order of nature.” Ensure that such a provision is never used
to prevent exercise of freedom of assembly, association, and the
right to form and join associations.

Respond positively to the longstanding request of the UN
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom
of opinion and expression to carry out a country visit and agree on dates
at the earliest opportunity.

Invite the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom
of peaceful assembly and association to visit Uganda.

To the NGO Board

Take proactive measures to inform NGOs on how to comply
with legal obligations and assist them in preventing and correcting any
administrative problems so that registration can be timely and
cost-effective.

Do not threaten deregistration or delay registration of
NGOs simply for administrative infractions.

Strictly ensure that any administrative obligations
imposed on NGOs have a proper legal basis, are strictly necessary and
proportionate to a legitimate purpose, and that they are compatible with
safeguarding an environment in which civil society can operate freely.

Publicly acknowledge that NGOs are legally permitted to
work in coalitions, scrutinize government accountability, and advocate for
policy change on political subject matter without threat of
deregistration.

If provided with increased financial means, ensure funds
are directed towards measures which build trust with the NGO sector and
will facilitate a positive environment for NGOs.

Recognize and support the registration of NGOs working on
the rights of LGBT people as a routine part of legitimate human rights
work.

To Uganda’s Parliament

Amend the 2006 NGO Act to bring it into compliance with
international law and the 2010 NGO Policy.

Throw out the 2009/2012 Anti-Homosexuality Bill and reject
any efforts to introduce provisions from the bill via any future
amendments to the penal code.

Repeal the colonial-era article 145 of the penal
code, which criminalizes “carnal knowledge against the order of
nature.” Such a provision should also never be used to prevent
exercise of freedom of assembly, association, and the right to form and
join associations.

To Uganda’s International Partners, particularly the
United States, Donors Contributing to the Democratic Governance Facility, the
World Bank, and the African Development Bank

Seize every opportunity to forcefully raise concern about
the threats to civil society in Uganda and call on the government to take
concrete steps to foster an environment in which civil society can operate
freely on a full range of subjects—including oil sector management, corruption,
governance, the environment, human rights, and the rights of LGBT people.

Publicly express concern over the restrictions of freedom
of expression and urge the president to make a public statement calling on
all government officials, including district level officials and NRM
members, to refrain from harassing, threatening, or obstructing research
and advocacy work by NGOs, including outside Kampala.

Encourage the Ugandan government to uphold freedom of
expression and association by amending the legislation regulating civil
society to conform to international standards and simplify protocols for
granting research permission, including removing requirement for such
permission where this is an unnecessary and disproportionate condition of
the research.

Publicly express support for the work of NGOs and continue
to support them financially and otherwise. Engage Ugandan civil society
groups, including those based outside Kampala, more intensively on issues
such as good governance, public sector management, corruption, and human
rights, including the rights of LGBT people, thus stressing the importance
of their work.

If any funding to the government’s NGO Board is
provided, insist that this be contingent on the board facilitating an
enabling environment for all NGO work, desisting from encouraging or
facilitating any surveillance of NGOs, and supporting the registration of
NGOs working on the rights of LGBT people.

Methodology

This report is based on research carried out by Human Rights
Watch staff throughout 2011, as well as in-country research missions between
May and July 2012. Human Rights Watch interviewed 41 people, including 25
representatives of NGOs working on a broad range of thematic work and from
around the country, as well as donors, police, and government actors.

Researchers interviewed representatives of NGOs from around
Uganda working on research and advocacy on the most sensitive
topics—human rights, good governance, LGBT, corruption, oil, and land
rights—at meetings in Kampala, with some follow-up telephone and email
interviews. Researchers selected interviewees to gain the broadest possible
range of opinion among those working in the non-profit sector. Ministerial and
government regulatory officials were given the opportunity to respond to
concerns raised in the report and their comments are reflected within the
report.

All interviews were conducted in English, often lasted more
than one hour, and were mostly one-on-one. No compensation or any form of
remuneration was offered or provided to any person interviewed for this report.
Many interviewees asked that their names be withheld for fear of reprisals to
themselves, their families, the safety of their employment, or their
organization’s ability to operate in Uganda. We have complied with this
request and intentionally omitted, in some sensitive cases, identifying details
of individuals who met with our researchers. To protect identities, Human Rights Watch has used
pseudonyms in the form of initials for each interviewee.

Human Rights Watch has documented threats to freedom of
expression, association, and assembly in Uganda for over a decade. This report
builds on the similar patterns of problems documented in Human Rights
Watch’s 2010 report A Media Minefield: Increased Threats to Freedom of
Expression in Uganda, which looked at the harassment of the media,
particularly rural-based journalists, in the run-up to the 2011 presidential
and parliamentary elections.[1]

I. Background

The political situation in Uganda remains tense despite
President Museveni’s victory by significant margins in the February 2011
presidential elections.[2]
The elections marked only the second multiparty election in Uganda’s
history and returned the president to office for an unprecedented 26th
year. But the win was marked by allegations of massive government spending to
procure votes, a corresponding deteriorating economic situation, and fractures
within the president’s party, the ruling National Resistance Movement
(NRM).

Several factors have escalated pressure on the ruling elite
and the president personally, including increased public criticism of the 2005
constitutional amendment to lift presidential term limits, high rates of
inflation and unemployment, a violent crackdown on demonstrations in 2011, poor
service delivery particularly in the areas of health and education, and
controversy over oil revenue transparency. These pressures have likely
contributed to the government’s efforts to shut down public discussion of
governance and public sector accountability, which has in turn prompted
increased threats to civil society.

While the 2011 elections themselves were mostly peaceful,
funding was at least one key factor in the ruling party’s victory.[3]
In the wake of the election Uganda’s donor countries criticized President
Museveni’s massive off-budget expenditures to support the elections, the
pay-outs to parliamentarians, and the procurement of several fighter jets worth
over US$740 million.[4]
As inflation rose the International Monetary Fund (IMF) delayed approval of
Uganda’s economic policies because government spending was found to be
out of compliance with agreed-upon principles of macroeconomic stability.[5]

As inflation increased activists and opposition leadership
launched the group Activists for Change (A4C). A4C called on the public to
“foster peaceful change in the management of public affairs.” The
first action was a “Walk to Work” to protest rising fuel and food
prices in April 2011. The government argued that these walks constituted an
unlawful assembly after protests took place in Kampala, Masaka, and Gulu.
Police and the military confronted participants and bystanders using live
ammunition which left nine people dead.[6]

Opposition leader Kizza Besigye was arrested several times
throughout 2011 while walking to work and held in “preventative
detention” at his home.[7]
In mid-October 2011 at least 27 members of A4C were arrested and charged with
incitement to violence, concealment of treason, or treason as the group planned
more protests to highlight corruption and inflation. In April 2012 the
government used a rarely-invoked and controversial provision of the penal code
to ban A4C after a policeman died from a head injury sustained when a melee erupted
between police and some opposition leaders in Kampala. The government blamed
A4C for the death and arrested scores of people.[8] While the
government’s use of the police and military to crush protests and
demonstration has been criticized, there has been no investigation into the
abusive use of force and no state actor has been held accountable.[9]
Some analysts have cited the government’s fear of an “Arab
spring” in Uganda as a significant motivator of the aggression towards
A4C and more broadly towards citizen demonstrations.[10]

Government officials have used homophobia in an attempt to
galvanize public support and distract attention away from underlying governance
problems. This was particularly apparent when, in the midst of the public
debates about government brutality in the face of the Walk to Work protests in
May 2011, the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs in parliament held
public hearings on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, a bill that proposes to impose
the death penalty for some consensual homosexual acts and create several new
crimes that would threaten legitimate human rights work (for more see section
on Human Rights/LGBT Work).[11]
The rush to stage the public hearings occurred despite the fact that the bill
had been languishing for nearly two years and it was only days until the end of
the parliamentary term leaving no time for appropriate procedures to be
followed. The vast majority of committee membership underscored the futility of
the exercise by failing to attend the hearings.[12]

The government has also faced criticism over its failure to
deliver in the key areas of health and education. A group of health activists
are suing the government over the staggering rates of maternal mortality.[13]
Teachers and other unionized groups have called several strikes and voiced
criticism of budgetary allocations over the past year.[14]
Religious leaders who have been critical of the president and his policies have
also faced hostile rhetoric from government officials.[15]

And in the midst of increasing concerns over service
delivery, corruption, and financial mismanagement stands the oil sector and the
government’s focus on portraying Uganda as a safe place for foreign
investment. There is considerable domestic concern that if and when oil revenue
begins to flow troubling patterns of governance and corruption are likely to be
entrenched. “[T]he anticipated expansion of revenue is likely to allow
Museveni to extend and consolidate his patronage system and so ensure his
control of government,” wrote the International Crisis Group.[16]
Civil society groups have been on the front line of pushing for greater
transparency in oil governance, questioning if Uganda is likely to become
another locus for the dreaded “oil curse” and documenting land
conflicts fueled by pressures for foreign investment.

II. Uganda’s NGO Sector Laws and Policies

[T]he dominant understanding … tends to be with
service delivery NGOs, rather than with advocacy ones. A “political fear
factor” has conditioned many NGOs to avoid engaging with issues of power
and politics thereby contributing less than they could possibly to the
democratization agenda.

—Ugandan NGO Briefing for the
Minister of Internal Affairs, August 11, 2009[17]

Uganda’s 1995 constitution contains strong provisions
on freedom of expression and association,[18] including the freedom
to form and join associations.[19]
The constitution further guarantees the right to engage in peaceful activities
to influence the policies of the government through civic organizations,[20]
and provides that any limitations on human rights must be acceptable and
demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.[21]

Despite these broad safeguards, Uganda’s regulatory
framework for the non-profit sector does not facilitate the work of NGOs. The
current laws and regulations are not compatible with constitutional and
international human rights protections, and several provisions obstruct and
confuse nongovernmental organizations trying to comply with the law. This is
increasingly important as hostile government rhetoric directed at civil society
intensifies. Multiple government actors have stated that NGO activity will be
thoroughly “scrutinized” and that NGOs out of compliance will face
deregistration.[22]

NGOs are regulated under the Nongovernmental Organisations
Registration Act (NGO Act), enacted in 1989, and amended in 2006; the NGO
Registration Regulations of 2009; and the 2010 National NGO Policy which was
the product of long consultations between the Ministry of Internal Affairs and
representatives of the NGO sector.[23]

NGOs are narrowly defined under the NGO Act as a body “established
to provide voluntary services, including religious, educational, literary, scientific,
social or charitable services to the community or any part of it,”
reflecting a limited understanding of NGOs and emphasizing only service
delivery dimensions.[24]

Generally, in order to operate lawfully, NGOs in Uganda
register as a legal entity with the government’s NGO Board under the NGO
Act. To carry out research NGOs must then obtain permission from specified
national and district level authorities. NGOs can also legally register as a
“company limited by guarantee” under the Companies Act.[25]

The NGO Act establishes a National Board for Nongovernmental
Organizations (NGO Board) with the power to grant or refuse registration and to
revoke registration once granted if the board deems it “in the public
interest to do so.”[26]
The Ministry of Internal Affairs oversees the NGO Board and its members are
appointed directly by the minister. Members include three members of the
public, officials from the Internal Security Organization (ISO) and the
External Security Organization (ESO), as well as representatives from
government ministries. The presence of the ISO, the government’s main
domestic intelligence agency, and the ESO, the external intelligence agency on
the board—both of whom report directly to the president and have been
alleged to be involved in unlawful treatment of civilians[27]—indicates,
as one critique states, that the NGO Act “is premised on a narrow
security and control objective rather than development considerations.”[28]
Problematically, the board has no representatives from the NGO sector itself.[29]

The 2010 NGO Policy was an important step in addressing the
NGO sector’s “discontent with what they perceive as overbearing
Government regulatory oversight which constrains their freedom of
action.”[30]
The policy positively seeks to “strengthen the functionality of the roles
and responsibilities of these Non-State partners in national
development.”[31]
Respect for fundamental human rights, freedom of association, gender equity and
“[d]ignity, mutual respect and trust underpinned by open dialogue,
transparency and accountability” are specifically stated as the core
values of the policy.

But the aspirations of the policy are in conflict with the
laws currently in place, such as the 2006 amendments and the 2009 regulations.
For example, the legal regime sets out lengthy and convoluted registration requirements
for NGOs and confusing procedures that NGOs are expected to comply with to
receive permission to conduct research.

In order to complete an application for registration to the
NGO Board, local NGOs must provide a number of documents, including an annual
written work plan; the budget and constitution of the NGO; a recommendation by
two sureties acceptable to the NGO Board; a recommendation from the chairperson
of the executive committee of the sub-county council and the Resident District
Commissioner in the given area; and the application must be signed by two
“promoters.”[32]
Even when these steps are fulfilled, approval of the registration is solely at
the discretion of the board. Amendments to the NGO Act in 2006 failed to
include any safeguards to check the board’s discretion when rendering
decisions or to provide recourse for NGOs seeking to appeal board decisions.[33]
Appeals of NGO Board decisions can be made to the minister of internal affairs,
the line minister of the NGO Board itself, but there is no provision in law for
judicial oversight or challenge to its decisions, leaving NGOs without a remedy
in cases of conflict with the board.

NGO representatives carrying out research and advocacy work
voiced considerable trepidation to Human Rights Watch about how to ensure
compliance with the details of the NGO registration framework in the most
productive and efficient manner, especially if there is increased scrutiny. One
NGO trying to register told Human Rights Watch, “We want to be in
compliance, but those people are not serious. It’s a very long process
and you never know if you are safe.”[34] For the LGBT community
there is the added burden of existing discriminatory legislation as an obstacle
to lawful registration.

If an NGO wants to carry out research or advocacy activities
throughout the country the regulations state that the organization must seek
written recommendations from “the chairperson of at least two sub-county
councils and at least two Resident District Commissioners.”[35]
Moreover the regulations also state that an organization can “not make
direct contact with people in their area of operation in Uganda unless it has
given seven days [sic] notice in writing of its intention to do so to the local
councils and the resident district commissioners of the area.”[36]
The regulations specifically state that an organization must “restrict
its operations to the area of Uganda in respect of which it is permitted to
operate.”[37]
Therefore NGOs cannot lawfully carry out research without being fully
scrutinized by the authorities before starting. This structure also creates
multiple layers of authorities and permissions over NGO work.

Even if an organization is registered its ability to conduct
research, especially involving rural populations, is—at least according
to law—further controlled. When an organization seeks to conduct any
individual research project each time they are required to seek the written
approval of a separate research oversight authority, the Uganda National
Council for Science and Technology (UNCST), which “registers and together
with the Research Secretariat in the office of the president, clears all
research intended to be carried out in Uganda.”[38] In
this way the office of President Museveni is at least legally required to be
aware and involved in determining any research agenda. There is no clarity as
to what kinds of research methodologies—statistical surveys, anecdotes,
household data—or subjects should incur these requirements. The expertise
of the UNCST is clearly in the area of scientific research. But in some
instances NGOs were told by the NGO Board to seek the research certificate to
conduct any research[39] or by
local authorities to seek the research certificate for informal interviews with
members of rural communities; others had operated for years without obtaining
one.

Corruption by district officials or other low level
technical staff can further complicate the ability of NGOs to operate safely.
NGO activists said that trying to work at the local level was a “corrupt
process” where each official demands money in return for the necessary
paperwork to file for registration.[40]
Several NGOs told Human Rights Watch that in certain areas of the country, such
as Moroto district for example, demands for payment to local officials is a
serious challenge. “We found a hostile RDC and DISO in Moroto, both less
than enthusiastic about our past and present work” said one researcher.
“It became clear that what he was talking about was … the lack of
bribes paid by our team to the DISO and RDC.”[41]
Ultimately the DISO did not grant permission to conduct the research until the
NGO contacted their donors who raised concerns over the obstructions directly
with government officials.[42]
These kinds of incidents ultimately discourage NGOs from seeking necessary permissions
from local authorities and also leave NGOs, particularly local ones, vulnerable
to accusations of failing to comply with the law.

While the government has not routinely enforced the entire
NGO legal regime in the strictest sense, NGOs, as documented in this report,
fear that bureaucratic interference and requirements that further permissions
will need to be obtained to carry out routine work are on the rise as the
government grows increasingly paranoid and seeks to shut down debate on
politically sensitive topics. Minister of Internal Affairs Hilary Onek,
speaking at the National Civil Society Organization Fair in Kampala in May
2012, said that the government has not been able to “interface”
with NGOs fully because “our regulatory authority, the NGO Board, needs
to be strengthened for that regulatory function to be fulfilled properly. With
the lack of supervision, in the absence of proper supervision and regulation,
there has been a vacuum created for some NGOs to stray away from their purpose
for which they should be operating.”[43]

III. Trends in Government’s Hostile Rhetoric
toward NGOs

This aid is, of course, not always used for core areas.
Quite a bit of it is used for non-core and arrogant areas such as the so-called
‘governance’ issues, “capacity” building, etc. I call
these non-core and arrogant because the people of Uganda do not need assistance
in governance.[44]

—President Museveni, May 9,
2012

Civil society has come under fire from Uganda’s
government, which compounds the already antagonistic environment that NGOs feel
they operate in under the 2006 NGO Act amendments and subsequent 2009
regulations. Nongovernmental organizations working on sensitive issues relating
to governance, human rights, LGBT, and other controversial issues have borne
the brunt of hostile rhetoric from senior government officials.

In the last year high-ranking government officials have used
two main lines of argument to discredit the work of critical NGOs. First, some
government officials claim that NGOs are not to be trusted because they are
funded by “the West” and therefore represent the views of
“foreign infiltration” seeking to tarnish the country’s
international standing, destroy its values, and/or plunder its resources.
Second, NGOs are not to be trusted because they are really opposition political
parties masquerading as NGOs bent on defaming the country.

In September 2011 Minister Onek said he would
“ban” international NGOs because they “tell lies” and
are allegedly trying to undermine the work of the government through false
reports on human rights abuses.[45]
He did not provide any factual evidence to support his claim, or offer an
explanation as to why any NGO would have a desire to undermine the government
with false reporting. In November 2011 the Red Pepper, a Ugandan tabloid
favored by government, reported that a secret security report allegedly presented
to President Museveni identified philanthropist George Soros as trying to
influence the Ugandan oil sector, and that when “his approach was denied
implementation, he subsequently opened a number of NGOs in Uganda to push for
the same cause.”[46]
Early in 2012 President Museveni himself addressed parliament on oil issues and
attacked civil society for being under the influence of international
interests, saying “Who is ‘civil society’? These are some
individuals in the employ of foreign NGOs. How can these be ‘civil
society’? [...] Why should people working for foreign governments that
fund the NGOs be regarded as civil society?”[47]

Minister Onek’s opening comments at the launch of the
Global Week of Action against Armed Violence in Kampala in mid-June 2012
encapsulated the growing hostility against the local nongovernmental sector. According
to the government-owned New Vision newspaper, Onek said that a number of
Ugandan NGOs are “fermenting negative political activism with assistance
from ‘enemies of the current regime’ from abroad yet hiding behind
humanitarian work.”[48] He
argued that “This [is] a critical moment and NGOs that are portraying us
as those dictatorial regimes of Amin are going to be weeded out. They want to destabilize the country because that is what
they are paid to do.”[49]

This line of argument is ironic given that, although civil
society clearly receives significant funding from foreign sources, the
government itself is still heavily supported by the West. The Ministry of
Finance indicates in a June 2012 report that almost 30 percent of
Uganda’s state budget is funded by foreign donors.[50]

The allegation that “the West” is importing
values has also been the prime argument against organizations fighting to
protect the rights of LGBT people in Uganda. The former and current ministers
of state for ethics and integrity have launched particularly vitriolic attacks
on local groups fighting the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The current state minister
told the media that he had documented evidence of meetings held to
“empower, enhance and recruit (homosexuals),” and that NGOs were
channeling foreign money for those purposes.[51] He has never produced
any evidence despite making such a claim multiple times (for more see section on
Human Rights/LGBT Work).

Government comments reflect a fundamental paranoia towards
civil society work and a suspicion that those working on governance and human
rights have partisan political agendas. “Some [NGOs] have involved
themselves outright in politics,” said Minister Onek while opening the
Uganda National Civil Society Fair as the guest of honor.

If an NGO wants to be involved in politics, let them create
a political party and then we go full blast, instead of operating undercover.
It is cowardly to hide under an NGO as a politician and you use an NGO to advance
your points. It is better to come out openly…. Because they are spoiling
the genuine NGOs, the genuine humanitarian NGOs, who come with the aim of
helping our people.[52]

The government’s NGO Board communicated to one NGO
that it should “desist from politics” and this was then reported in
the media.[53]
According to the government-owned New Vision newspaper, Onek has also argued
that NGOs have been digressing from the roles for which they are registered and
thus that they must be more strictly controlled.[54]
Government has claimed that it will deregister international and local NGOs for
this “negative political activism.”[55]

According to knowledgeable sources the NGO Board received a
list of 20 NGOs to investigate for possible deregistration from the minister of
internal affairs.[56]
The rumors surrounding that list have prompted significant fear in the NGO
sector. Several NGO representatives told Human Rights Watch that they believe
their organization is listed and that they are scaling back activities to some
extent as a result.

IV. Obstructions, Threats, and Harassment Directed
at NGOs

Good Governance and
Corruption Work

In 2010, 17 Ugandan NGOs came together to launch the
Citizen’s Manifesto led by the Uganda Governance Monitoring Platform, an
NGO conducting research and advocacy on accountability in governance. The
objective was “to generate a citizens’ political demand upon which
to hold various elected leaders accountable and upon which the responsiveness
of the political system can be assessed.”[57] Under
the auspices of the Citizens’ Manifesto, civil society around the country
has been engaged in various meetings and campaigns, but in some areas of the
country these efforts have been met with threats from government actors,
particularly resident district commissioners who are appointed by the president
and district internal security organization officers, and in some cases, the
arrests of members of civil society and obstructions of their meetings.

For example, in the run-up to the presidential and
parliamentary elections in early 2011, the coalition launched a campaign called
“Return Our Money.” The campaign called on members of parliament to
return a parliament-approved payment of 20 million Uganda shillings (US$8,500)
to each of its nearly 330 members as part of a supplementary budget allocation.
The money was officially said to be for monitoring government programs, but
many anti-corruption activists questioned whether that was the real reason
behind disbursing such a large sum of money to government officials just a few
weeks before elections, especially when Uganda’s treasury had publicly
stated it was having cash flow problems. In a January 26, 2011 public statement
the campaign’s leaders contended that the payments were “widely
believed to be a bribe,” given that the members of parliament already
receive money for monitoring work, that there were no guidelines for spending
the money, and the timing of the payout with elections. The statement also
listed several development projects, such as water sources, food for students,
and sanitation services, which could have used the money.

On February 5, 2011, there was a wave of arrests of
volunteers trying to deliver the statement to local government officials in
Kampala. Police confiscated the volunteers’ phones and subjected them to
lengthy interrogations. Some were asked for personal details such as the names
and addresses of family members and were told they might be charged with
treason or incitement to violence. At the time, one of those detained told
Human Rights Watch, “I felt intimidated by police. They threatened me
with abuse and asked me if I had permission to publish the statement. I told
them, I don’t need permission to do my work. Then police asked me who I
would vote for.” In the final count 16 people were arrested and detained
for at least several hours in Kampala, either for distributing the statement or
for having it in their possession.

In Lira district in northern Uganda the statement also
prompted police action. On February 7, 2011, a local station called Radio Rhino
hosted a talk show with the chairmen of three political parties. During the
program a civil society member from Facilitation for Peace and Development (FAPAD)
read the statement and the moderator summarized it in the local language for
listeners. FAPAD is a member of Uganda Governance Monitoring Platform and one
of the groups that signed the statement. The next day the group’s
executive director, Eunice Apio, was summoned for interrogation separately by
both the district police commander (DPC) and the RDC.

During the interrogation the police commander allegedly
threatened Apio that she would be charged with incitement to violence or
hurting the reputation of the president, as well as other crimes. In another
meeting on February 9, 2011, the DPC, the district internal security officer,
and the RDC, along with police questioned Apio again about the contents of the
statement. In the end the officials told FAPAD that there was a moratorium on
any further comments to the press about the payments to the parliament members,
but refused to put this instruction in writing or provide the legal basis for
imposing such a moratorium.

Beginning in early 2012 members of the Citizen’s
Manifesto again sought to organize a nation-wide effort to discuss key issues
in governance. The Citizen Leaders Engagement Meetings were to engage with
various local and national leaders and assess how the country has fared since
the 2011 elections. An important feature of these discussions is the
restoration of presidential term limits in the constitution. In a widely
controversial move the constitution was amended in 2005, just before the 2006
elections, to lift term limits and permit President Museveni to run again,
despite having already held office for 20 years at that point. There are those
in civil society and in government—including in the President’s own
party—who believe that the constitution should not have been amended and
now seek to change it to its original text as it was in 1996.[58]
Clearly some district level officials, particularly RDCs, perceive this
discussion as a personal attack on the president. Their jobs are dependent on
his good graces as they are appointed directly by him and so preventing the
opportunities for these discussions is—at least some extent—personally
important for their careers.

In parts of the country the meetings have taken place
without significant problems but in others, organizers have faced challenges.
An RDC in the southwest forced organizers of an event to remove the words
“term limits” from the title of the event. “We agreed to
change it because we want to proceed,” said one organizer. “For us
to provide a platform for Ugandans to speak, we have learned to succumb and
adjust our plans.”[59]

In Lira FAPAD and the Lira NGO Forum had to abort two public
meetings, one on May 26 on term limits and another on June 23 where a range of
individuals drawn from the political leadership, including members of
parliament, planned to discuss progress of the Citizen’s Manifesto. In
both instances security officials at the district level told the venue
operators that the discussions could not proceed. The local government representatives
argued that the May discussion could not take place because an immunization
event was taking place the same day. The organizers agreed to reschedule to June.
However, the DISO stated that organizers were required to submit a list of
participants and guest speakers and the names of persons organizing the event.
Ultimately, despite inviting the police, DISO, and RDC, among others to the
public discussion, security officials said that it had to be
“postponed” or it would be an “unlawful assembly.”[60]
District security officials accused the organizers of seeking to “incite
the public” numerous times, and flagged that the minister of internal
affairs had said that action will be taken against NGOs involved in politics.[61]

In another incident in February 2012, Ugandan police at the
Mutukula border post impounded 700,000 calendars printed by an East African
NGO, Twaweza.[62]Twaweza seeks to promote citizen information and citizen participation in
change. The organization had printed the calendars filled with photographs of
world leaders as part of a public education project. Media reports quote a
police official as saying “the calendar message has the potential to
incite the public.”[63]
The calendar had pictures of national and international leaders including the president,
speaker of parliament, some members of parliament, international football
[soccer] players, business people, and the Queen of England.[64] The
calendars also had some inspirational messages encouraging the Uganda citizenry
to “play their part” in the development agenda.

Environment, Land, and
Oil Work

Organizations carrying out research, advocacy, and citizen
education on environmental issues have also faced increasing obstructions to
their work. Conflict over land tenure remains a serious source of community
turmoil, particularly in areas where there is oil or where government and
private companies intend to carry out large scale investment projects. NGOs
have in several instances rallied in support of affected communities,
criticizing the manner in which land evictions have been carried out and the
absence of fairness of financial compensation packages. NGOs seeking to educate
the public about the value of their land, community processes, and compensation
rights face a variety of problems from government officials, including threats
of deregistration, accusations of sabotaging government programs, and arrest.
As one NGO staff member told Human Rights Watch, “If your research raises
a flag about people in power in this country, and how they are getting money
out of this country, you are at serious risk. If you preach human rights in
this sector, you are anti-development, an economic saboteur.”[65]

NGOs interviewed by Human Rights Watch cited the ongoing
problems of Uganda Land Alliance (ULA) as casting a dark shadow over the
operating environment because of the government’s actions, including a
wide-ranging investigation by the NGO Board which ultimately recommended apologies
from ULA and threats of deregistration. In September 2011 Oxfam published a report
on land conflict in various countries around the world.[66] Oxfam
worked with ULA to research one Ugandan case study about alleged evictions from
Mubende and Kiboga districts. The Ugandan National Forestry Authority had
granted licenses to the UK-based New Forests Company (NFC), which had received
investment from the World Bank’s private sector lending branch, the
International Finance Corporation (IFC), among others. The case study argues
that police and military forcibly and brutally removed several thousand people
from the land and security officials ignored interim orders from the High Court
barring the evictions pending a full hearing, among other violations of the
rights of the community.[67]

In the wake of the report’s publication and a
complaint filed on behalf of the affected communities with the Compliance
Advisor/Ombudsman (CAO), the independent recourse mechanism of the IFC,
Uganda’s minister of water and environment published a statement
disputing the use of the term “land grab,” arguing that the
residents were “encroachers” and “illegal occupants,”
and that evictions were lawfully carried out by the government institutions
mandated to do so. On the issue of the legality of the tenancy of the
residents, the minister stated that “due to the breakdown of law and
order, and indeed the breakdown of formal government machinery in the seventies
and eighties many things went wrong in Uganda.”[68] She
urged the report authors to issue a “more accurate” version of the
research and assured the government’s commitment to rule of law.[69]
She did not respond to the allegations of the human rights violations committed
during the removals, but asked anyone with evidence to come forward.

The disagreement over the report’s findings
intensified. The minister of state for economic monitoring, based in the
president’s office, communicated concerns to the minister of internal affairs
which prompted an “investigation into the alleged improper conduct of two
NGOs.”[70]
Allegedly, the activities of the NGOs “incited local communities into
violent and hateful acts against the New Forests Company” and that this
caused “economic loss to some investors … [and] tainted the
Country’s international image on investor management, the respect and
promotion of human rights and even brought the person of the President in to
disrepute.”[71]

The Ministry of Internal Affairs then tasked the NGO Board
to conduct a wide-ranging investigation which went well beyond the legal
mandate and the technical capacity of the board itself. For example, according
to the report, the NGO Board investigation was mandated by government to
“establish the legality” of the New Forests Company and to
“identify the sources of conflict and its management.”[72]
Why or how the NGO Board would have legal authority over the status of a
foreign-incorporated private sector actor, or the legal and technical knowledge
to address community conflict, re-research the report’s findings, and
make determinations regarding research methodologies, is not clear.

Ultimately the NGO Board investigation recommended that the
NGOs have their permits withdrawn if they did not take “corrective
action,” that the report be “withdrawn,” and that a
retraction be issued. Furthermore the board said that the NGOs should
“make apologies to the President of the Republic of Uganda, Government of
Uganda Ministries, Agencies and Local Governments….”[73]

In two public statements ULA stood by the content of the
research and their methodological approach and pressed the government to
address the problems documented in the report.[74] They have also flagged
that the government’s approach to the disagreement is likely to affect
the sector. “The price for Uganda Land Alliance’s investigations
into cases of land grabbing has been set-so high that once paid, it will become
extremely risky for anyone attempting to question the vices of land grabbing
and forceful evictions of innocent citizens,” the group noted.[75]

In a May letter to ULA the minister of internal affairs
called ULA “contemptuous” and stated that ULA was seeking to
“ridicule” government authority and its institutions.[76]
At his opening remarks at the National Civil Society Fair, the minister further
accused ULA of “peddling lies” and said that he would “bring
them to order so that they don’t spoil the image of the country, the head
of state, and the first family, and any other institutions of
government.”[77]
On June 14, 2012, ULA publicly expressed regret for inaccurate or speculative
statements that the media might have made when writing on the content of the
report and apologized for misunderstandings.[78]

It is not clear what will happen next or if ultimately ULA
will face deregistration. Some knowledgeable sources told Human Rights Watch
that the parties— Oxfam, ULA, the government, and the New Forests Company—have
worked together to draft a joint statement which will eventually be released to
the public, but that had not yet occurred at the time of writing. The
IFC’s CAO Ombudsman has begun a dispute resolution process involving all
the parties.[79]

In early 2012 the NGO Africa Institute for Energy Governance
(AFIEGO) raised concerns about the amount of compensation offered to
communities in Bugiri, Iganga, Jinja, Mayuge, Mbarara, and Tororo districts to
make way for high voltage electrical lines.[80] Some communities
argued that they were not being fairly compensated for their land by Uganda
Electrical Transmission Company Limited (UETCL), a government entity, and that
UETCL staff were buying land at low rates and then cashing in on the large
scale project.[81]
Rather than addressing those substantive concerns, UETCL, in an advertisement
in the government-owned New Vision newspaper, published a statement
which argued that AFIEGO was mobilizing affected communities to reject
compensation offers and “inciting the public” to be hostile to
officials. Further, UECTL argued that the NGO’s actions were
“bordering on sabotage of government programs and are
unacceptable.”[82]

Another NGO working on land issues and evictions told Human
Rights Watch that government and security operatives have thwarted their
ability to get information from people who believe they have been aggrieved.
“DISOs harass people who try to come to us,” said one NGO staff
member. “Then the DISO comes to us and said, ‘why are you talking
to those people?’ When we ran ads calling for people to come and report
instances of land grabbing, RDCs called my staff and asked, who paid for these
ads? And why are you decampaigning [campaigning against] government?”[83]

Research in the areas of the country where oil has been
discovered also remains very challenging. The government has attempted to
control outsiders’ access to the communities, particularly Buliisa
district, where the oil areas are located in close proximity of the district
government offices. There is a clear understanding among members of civil
society working on oil issues that they must receive written permission each
time they seek to visit the region from the permanent secretary of the Ministry
of Energy and Mineral Development, despite this not being in law or even in
print anywhere.[84]

One NGO told Human Rights Watch that they had written to the
secretary for permission, they had been asked follow-up questions, and then
never received a final answer.[85]
In some instances NGOs have traveled without written permission, but they
expressed significant fears of doing so. “If the DISO had found us
talking to community members, he would have arrested us, even though we are
Ugandans and we are allowed to be there in our own country,” said one NGO
staff who recently travelled to Buliisa.[86]

The fear of arrest is not without basis. In July 2010 the chairman
of the Buliisa district NGO Forum was arrested and charged with
“disobeying police orders,” after arranging meetings in the
district for a local NGO, the National Association of Professional
Environmentalists (NAPE).[87]
He was held for five days and eventually released on police bond.[88]
Also in July 2010 the RDC of Buliisa district ordered the arrest of NAPE staff
members after they held a community meeting earlier that day.[89] On
January 20, 2011, the then resident district commissioner of Amuru district and
security operatives stopped officials from Publish What You Pay Uganda from
screening a documentary about oil issues and their equipment was confiscated.[90]
As one Buliisa resident told the media, “organisations coming from
outside the District are the ones being restricted. Very many researchers have
been chased out of the District and many journalists have been chased out
because they don’t have the permission of the [permanent
secretary].”[91]

The government has also begun to examine the financial
status of NGOs working on oil governance. In a much reported event in February
2012, Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE)—a
prominent organization working on good governance and oil sector
accountability, among other issues—hosted a meeting of 300 district
councilors as part of their “National Local Government Councilors
Association and the Local Government Scorecard,” a peer review process on
government accountability. It is unclear what aspect of this meeting prompted
concern from the security agencies—likely a discussion on oil revenue
allocation—but shortly after, on March 16, the governor of the Bank of
Uganda sent a letter to all commercial banks to handover details of
ACODE’s accounts. He stated that the bank “suspected” ACODE
was “engaged in suspicious transactions.”[92]

Since then ACODE has received a letter from the NGO Board
stating, among other things, that because ACODE was registered as an NGO it
must “stop being a member of unregistered loose coalitions that are
political in nature.”[93]
The NGO law is silent on the legal status of coalitions, but working in
coalition is a very common approach to advocacy in Uganda and also clearly
provides some protection when working on sensitive issues. The NGO Board raised
specific concerns about ACODE’s involvement in the Citizen Coalition for
Electoral Democracy (CCEDU), a grouping of hundreds of NGOs and community based
groups working on electoral issues, as well as the prominent Civil Society
Coalition on Oil (CSCO), comprised of many of the leading national and
international organizations working on the oil sector.[94]

Human Rights/LGBT Work

A sustained attack by the Ugandan government, both in
rhetoric and practice, on the rights of LGBT people has been on-going for
years. This has been highly controversial and caused significant debate between
various government actors and bilateral donors. This tension has intensified
since 2009 when a member of parliament from the ruling NRM party, David Bahati,
introduced the now notorious Anti-Homosexuality Bill.[95]
Homosexual sex is illegal under the colonial-era penal code which criminalizes
“carnal knowledge against the order of nature.”[96]

Bahati’s bill introduces several new crimes such as
“promotion of homosexuality,” which is particularly pernicious in
that all legitimate human rights work that seeks to research or advocate for
policy changes in the areas of sexual orientation or gender identity would be
potentially criminal. Experts have noted that these provisions will seriously
obstruct Uganda’s ability to fight HIV as outreach activities with some
communities would be a crime.[97]
The bill targets NGOs specifically stating that for the crime of
“promotion,” if the “offender is... a non-governmental
organization, on conviction its certificate of registration shall be cancelled
and the director or proprietor or promoter shall be liable on conviction to
imprisonment for seven years.”[98]

Another new crime of “failure to disclose the
offence” of homosexuality would impede work of health and human rights
organizations as it would legally require anyone with knowledge of homosexuality
to report the activity to police or face three years in prison.[99] This
legally mandated community witch hunt of anyone suspected of being homosexual
would jeopardize civil society working across many sectors. The current bill
also increases the penalty for some acts of homosexual sex to the death
penalty, though Bahati has told the media on several occasions that this might
be amended.[100]

Many foreign donors have staunchly defended the rights of
Uganda’s LGBT community and worked to defeat the bill. The bill has been
widely criticized internationally for its harsh provisions in obvious
contradiction of Uganda’s international human rights obligations,
including by United States President Obama who labeled the bill
“odious” at the 2010 national prayer breakfast.[101]
Domestic critics have been fewer, but local human rights groups, and
importantly the Uganda Human Rights Commission, have clearly stated that the
bill is unconstitutional.[102]
After the widespread outcry President Museveni declared that the bill had
become a “foreign policy matter,”[103] and
since then it has been in procedural flux in parliament.[104]
President Museveni has allegedly assured various diplomats on several occasions
that he would not sign the bill if it is passed by parliament.[105]

Over the three years the Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been
pending it has never been tabled for a parliamentary vote, but some government
actors have misinformed the public via the media, speaking and acting as if its
provisions are already in force. Given the public’s frustrations with the
ruling party leadership since the February 2011 elections, particularly around
financial mismanagement, the dim economic outlook, and significant inflation,
many see government’s increasing focus on the alleged threat of
homosexuality as an easy public diversion. The Ministry of State for Ethics and
Integrity has been the lead agent pushing Uganda’s aggressively homophobic
agenda and threatening NGO operating space.[106]

Throughout 2012 Honorable Simon Lokodo, currently the minister
of state for ethics and integrity and a former Catholic priest from the
impoverished north-eastern region of Karamoja, has intensified attacks on human
rights work which supports the rights of LGBT people. While the informal written
mandate of the Directorate for Ethics and Integrity is focused solely on
anti-corruption work, Minister Lokodo argues that as someone “empowered
to uphold moral values” he must address the issue of homosexuality.[107]
He told Human Rights Watch that fighting homosexuality is a “national
priority” and that those arguing for LGBT rights were “on a mission
to destroy this country.”[108]

To carry out his mission he has closed meetings and workshops,
threatened various civil society groups with deregistration for their work on
LGBT rights, and attempted to have some LGBT leadership arrested—despite having
no legal powers and clearly acting outside Uganda’s own laws and
obligations to protect freedom of expression, association, and assembly under
international human rights law.

A few months after taking office in mid-2011 Lokodo received
a letter from Reverend Canon Albert Ogle of the St. Paul’s Foundation in
the United States about the “topic of homosexuality and how the religious
and state authorities are viewing it.” The letter informed Lokodo of a US
meeting about “the effects of prohibitive laws that limit our ability to
be pastors, physicians and good fellow citizens to one another” and
invited him to attend a meeting to be held in Uganda to “bring together
religious and political leaders with NGOs, World Bank and other concerned
organizations about the links between full access to services and opportunity
and cooperation from the international community.”[109] In a
response via email Lokodo wrote that “the laws and cultures of Uganda
criminalize homosexuality and lesbianism and are punishable by life
imprisonment and death in cases of aggravated cases say abusing minorities or
recruiting inferiors into the perversion.”[110]
Furthermore, he threatened the conference organizers, stating “I advise
[sic] you not to make a mistake of staging the said conference anywhere in
Uganda. I can assure you [sic] will face the arm of the law.”[111]
In his response Lokodo blatantly overstated the current laws in Uganda, writing
as if the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was actually adopted and utterly disregarding
the constitution’s provisions protecting the rights to freedom of
assembly, expression, privacy, and association.

A few months later Lokodo shut down a February 2012 workshop
in Entebbe organized by Freedom and Roam Uganda (FARUG).[112]
FARUG advocates for LGBT rights and is led by the 2011 Martin Ennals award
winner Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera.[113]
Lokodo, accompanied by his police escort, appeared at the workshop and declared
it illegal after inspecting workshop materials. He claimed that the
group’s activities were against “tradition,” closed the
workshop, and dispersed the 35 participants.[114] Participants told
Human Right Watch that Lokodo threatened to arrest Nabagesera after she
challenged the minister’s order to disband the meeting. Four activists
affected by the shut-down have sued Lokodo and the attorney general in High
Court for infringement of their constitutional rights. The civil case is
currently pending.[115]

On June 18, 2012, Lokodo ordered another workshop to be shut
down. East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project (EHAHRDP), a
registered NGO focused on protecting and training human right defenders,
organized a training in Kampala for 20 LGBT advocates from around East Africa.
In this instance Lokodo did not appear but the head of the Kampala Metropolitan
Criminal Investigations Department of Police, Charles Kataratambi, was there in
person. Members of the media and police broke up the event and participants
were detained, questioned by the police, and in some instances police forced
their way into participants’ hotel rooms. Police demanded the
organizers’ NGO registration documents and later informed EHAHRDP that
they must seek permission from the police’s legal office and the district
police commander in the geographic area where any event would occur and that
they could not organize any meetings, trainings, or workshops on any subject without
such permission.[116]

The Ugandan newspaper The Observer later published a
front cover story stating that government had “intercepted” work
plans of the Civil Society Coalition of Human Rights and Constitutional Law, a
loose coalition of over 40 national and international NGOs seeking to stop the
passage of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, among other activities. Despite the
newspaper’s and Lokodo’s apparent exhilaration to expose what they
believed was some covert international conspiracy, the existence and work of
the coalition over the last three years is not secret; rather it has been
lauded internationally for its efforts and is the 2011 winner of the Human
Rights Defenders Award from the US State Department,[117] awarded
in person by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in August 2012.

Most troublingly TheObserver article also
stated that Lokodo planned to ban 38 NGOs “deemed sympathetic to the
activities of LGBT people” and that he had passed on a list of groups to
the Ministry of Internal Affairs.[118]
While some groups in the Civil Society Coalition focus specifically on LGBT
rights, others work on a broad range of human rights issues, including governance,
refugees, and women’s rights. Certain foreign embassies, including the US
embassy, regularly attend coalition meetings along with professors from
Makerere University. Some groups are legally registered as NGOs, some are
legally established as companies limited by guarantee under the Companies Act,
and others, particularly the LGBT organizations, are informal groups of
activists. The current discriminatory laws obviously make the registration of
organizations working on the rights of LGBT people highly challenging, and to
present a work plan to the NGO Board could potentially lead to arrest.

Lokodo argued that these coalition meeting participants
would face “deregistration,” despite the fact that the varied types
of legal entities which are participating make this impossible to do lawfully.
However, the situation does mean that registered NGOs working in the coalition
or who seek to protect LGBT rights generally and/or deem the Anti-Homosexuality
Bill to be unconstitutional are vulnerable to deregistration.

In a meeting with Human Rights Watch the minister was less
clear on the numbers and plans for which groups might face deregistration. He
said there were “hundreds of groups to check.” In conclusion he
said, “What I am telling you is NGOs and CSOs with questionable
intentions will be deregistered. Any NGO/CSO found contradicting their initial
registration will be deregistered, and they will have to reregister.” He
implied that international human rights groups working on LGBT issues were
betraying government, stating, “You all greet me with good grasp and then
you hit me in the back with a spear.”[119]

Minister Lokodo has never been publicly reprimanded or told
to abide by Uganda’s laws by the president or the prime minister, leading
many to believe that he is acting with their tacit support.[120] At
the same time, the minister has put out a range of contradictory public
statements on behalf of the government. When the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was
reintroduced in early 2012, he stated that the bill,

does not form part of the government’s legislative
programme and it does not enjoy the support of the Prime Minister or the
Cabinet.… Whilst the government of Uganda does not support this bill, it
is required under our constitution to facilitate this debate. The facilitation
of this debate should not be confused for the government’s support for
this bill.[121]

Lokodo’s legal arguments for his actions are at best
muddled, inaccurate, and often utterly incoherent. On June 18 on KFM
radio’s Hot Seat program he claimed that LGBT groups do not have the
right to form, saying that “because of the theme of your gathering you
are not allowed to associate. Because you intend to promote, recruit, and
enhance this [sexual] orientation. It is not allowed.”[122]
Lokodo issued a media statement on June 21 again incorrectly stating Ugandan
law and contradicting his own actions on the rights of Ugandan citizens.
“The Government would like to state that much as promoting gay activities
is illegal according to Section 145 of the Penal code Act,” he wrote,
“Uganda does not segregate against people of a different sexual orientation.
No government official is bent to harass any section of the community and
everybody in Uganda enjoys the freedom to lawfully assemble and associate
freely with others.”[123]

However later he told The Observer—in clear
contradiction to the statement that he issued in February 2012—that now
“We will support the bill…. We’ll punish them with a
deterrent punishment. We are looking for a day when this law is going to take
shape.”[124]
In an interview with Human Rights Watch he stated that he draws his legal
powers to close meetings from the “principle of sequence.” He
attempted to clarify, arguing that “If you are doing something to reach somewhere
we will condemn your initial action,” and he stated that this
“principle of sequence” comes from “nature.”[125]
He would not accept that “promotion” is currently not a crime in
Uganda or that it would threaten all legitimate human rights work in Uganda. In
conclusion, he told Human Rights Watch, “Law is zero. We are talking about
morals.”[126]

While not all of Uganda’s civil society actors
actively support the rights of LGBT people, there is a growing understanding
that threats to stop such efforts makes the whole sector vulnerable. “I
don’t believe the closure of NGOs is really about LGBT work,” said
one NGO staff member uninvolved in the coalition’s work. “The
government and Lokodo really seek to simply close the space for public debate
on many issues.”[127]

Surveillance, Robberies,
and Other Instances of Harassment

In the current environment staff of civil society
organizations often told Human Rights Watch that they feel unsafe and fear for
the safety of their families. Several stated that they had received anonymous
phone calls urging them to drop certain areas of research or questioning if
they still needed to be employed.[128]
One has decided to quit his job after repeated threatening phone calls.[129]
Some also suspect their calls are tapped and that their offices and/or homes
are under surveillance by security operatives.[130]

Rumors of surveillance of NGO work are buttressed by events
where “intruders” appear in meetings, demand to be allowed stay,
and contact local government authorities when challenged. For example, in Gulu
in April 2012 the deputy RDC allegedly sent “spies” to observe a
training for staff of Action Aid. When the meeting organizers inquired who the
two people were the individuals claimed to work for another organization which is
not a partner of Action Aid and was not invited. The two had no identification
and called the deputy RDC when questioned. The next day organizers received a
phone call from the deputy RDC stating that the training was
“illegal” and must stop. Despite multiple efforts to receive
clearance, including from the actual RDC, ultimately the training was closed
prematurely on the orders of the deputy RDC.[131]

Police action or inaction in face of threats has contributed
to fears. Four NGO employees said that their laptop computers had been stolen,
either from their offices or their homes, and that police had either not
investigated or that investigations were superficial and never yielded any
results.[132]

In at least one instance police forcibly entered an NGO
office and checked the contents of computer files for names of individuals who
had sought legal assistance following instances of unlawful arrest.[133]
Police have also obstructed events that would have the possibility of
illustrating the government’s failures in delivery of services. For
example, on March 27, 2012, a National NGO Forum volunteer was arrested at the
Serena Hotel in Kampala while seeking to raise awareness about victims of a
fatal condition, known as “nodding disease.”[134] The
volunteer had been sent by his organization to prepare for a fundraiser
organized at the hotel and carried photographs documenting victims of nodding
disease. He was detained for over five hours at Central Police Station
allegedly on charges of criminal trespass. Police confiscated his banner and
photos of nodding disease patients as well as a collection box for donations.
None of this has been returned to the National NGO Forum despite several
attempts to recover them. The box of monetary donations is still with police,
four months after the arrest. No charges were ever formally brought against the
volunteer.[135]

V. Self-Censorship

Several NGO representatives interviewed by Human Rights
Watch voiced serious concern about how their organization would continue to be
effective given the current operating environment. Some stated that they had
scaled back activities so as not to incur the wrath of RDCs, DISOs, and other
government officials. Other said they had wasted significant time and money
trying to prevent or mitigate potential negative government action directed at
their activities.

Some organizations have already stopped or significantly
changed their work on oil, human rights, and governance; areas deemed too
sensitive. With mounting pressures and government scrutiny, one organization
has stopped its work on evictions and land grabbing and its related advocacy
campaign on the issue.[136]
“We have been diverted…. To the public we seem to be abandoning
them,” commented one employee who would previously receive reports from
those displaced by land grabbing.[137]
She now no longer feels like she can respond to allegations of victims of land
conflict because of the current situation.

NGO staff also expressed significant concerns to Human
Rights Watch over how they would be able to continue carrying out certain
projects in the future, particularly projects relating to civic education,
governance, corruption, and human rights. “We don’t want government
to think this is a witch hunt,” said one NGO staff member, “but
corruption is a serious problem and officials can make it very hard to get the
right information. If we say we are going to research or track corruption in
the district, they will not permit us to carry out our work. So we say other
things and then we get the permissions we need.”[138]

Outreach work either in rural communities or on
controversial topics such as LGBT rights has also been scaled back in many instances.
One LGBT organization had a small project to distribute brochures which carried
the message that LGBT people are like everyone else and that God loves them.
Because of the government’s obstructions to the work of LGBT groups, the
organizers of this project felt that their volunteers would be unsafe and have
stopped this work.[139]
In order to continue operating and providing services to their community, they
have since limited the scope of their work.

The negative rhetoric against NGOs and the attempt to limit
the scope of NGO work from any activities perceived to be partisan or
subversive have increased tensions and fear among some in the NGO community.
NGO staff told Human Rights Watch of their apprehensions for current and future
work, particularly ahead of the 2016 presidential elections.

“Of course it affects you, it destabilizes your
work,” a member of an environmental coalition commented regarding the
negative rhetoric. Another representative told Human Rights Watch that, though
he does not believe it will fully come to NGO deregistration, he thinks the
government will use negative rhetoric to slander NGOs, and “will make us
[NGOs] look like immoral, terrible people. It will definitely create some
self-censorship going forward.”[140]

VI. The NGO Board and Challenges Going Forward

The NGO board is being used to send us a very clear message
that we cannot ignore. We are going to be under watch more than ever now on.

—NGO staff member, Kampala,
June 29, 2012.

According to government officials interviewed by Human
Rights Watch there are discussions of amendments to the current NGO laws in
cabinet, which could possibly come before parliament by the end of 2012.
Cabinet is to agree on a set of principles that could form the basis for the
new law.

No documents on the amendments have been made public so it
is not precisely clear how the new law might address the myriad of concerns
raised in this report. However, Ambassador Gabriel Kangwagye, chairman of the
NGO Board, clearly stated his views on what he wanted to see addressed. First,
it is important to remove the NGO Board from the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
he said, because it is “not conducive to creating an enabling
environment” and place it most likely in the Office of the Prime
Minister, where the board could be “semi-autonomous and better able to
respond to its mandate.”[141]
Second, there needs to be representation of NGOs themselves on the NGO Board.
Third, there is a need for NGO Board offices at the sub-county level, which can
monitor and register NGOs and educate both local government and civil society
actors about their relevant laws. In this way the NGO Board would be better
able to “coordinate, monitor, and promote” the NGO sector.[142]
Some of these changes—particularly regarding removing the board from the
Ministry of Internal Affairs and NGO representation on the board
itself—have been championed by Ugandan civil society for several years.[143]

The NGO Board has recently reached out to the donor funded
Democratic Governance Facility to provide increased financial support to
improve the board’s function.[144]
There is no doubt that the NGO Board lacks funding, and Ugandan NGO leadership
admit that the board is “deeply cash-stricken,” in the words of one
activist.[145]
According to Kangwagye, his office is budgeted to receive 200 million Ugandan
shillings (about $81,000)—but sometimes receives less in
practice—to cover all operating expenses, excluding salaries, of his 17
staff.[146]
NGO registration fees, though paid to the board, do not go to the board
operations, but rather are absorbed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. NGO
leaders pointed out that the NGO Board lack computers and other basic needs to
manage the office and function effectively.

However, the board has a lot of work to do to become a
trusted ally of the NGO sector and prevent itself from being seen as yet
another government institution acting in an ad hoc manner on the orders of the
president, his inner circle and cabinet to thwart critical voices. Many NGOs
interviewed by Human Rights Watch voiced this concern because of the NGO
Board’s recent actions. For example, at a meeting on June 30 between
leadership of the NGO community and the NGO Board, NGOs were instructed not to
engage in “political activity,” though what that entailed was not
defined.[147]
The well-publicized order that ACODE desist from participating in loose
coalitions and the implication that NGO work on oil or public sector
accountability was “political” were also repeatedly raised by NGO
leaders as illustrating the NGO Board’s real intentions.

The NGO Board’s communications to ACODE, ULA, and
others have betrayed the aspirations of the 2010 NGO Policy that was the
product of relatively positive negotiations between the NGO sector leadership
and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. For example, on the issue of NGOs working
in coalitions, the policy states that NGOs in Uganda often work in
“clusters, networks or umbrella organizations…. Such organs should
be supported to strengthen their work as they provide, inter alia, an important
opportunity for addressing quality assurance and other sector development
issues in a harmonized and constructive manner.”[148] Now
NGOs working in coalitions fear that formation of a coalition is somehow
unlawful.

As one NGO employee said, “Years ago, we saw where the
trend in the NGO Board was heading, acting to shield government when State
House [the president’s office] called on them, and so we have not
registered.”[149]
Concerns about angering the president’s office have forced NGOs and the board
itself into odd situations. One NGO worker said that he had been cautioned by
an employee of the NGO Board to avoid the term “good governance” in
his documents for registration.[150]
He said that it would prevent the group from getting registered in the current
climate. The NGO, however, feared by not being explicit in its mission during
registration it could later be accused of being out of compliance with the law.
This same concern is felt by human rights and other organizations that may
engage in outreach and advocacy on the rights of LGBT people. To be explicit in
registration materials would be a form of organization suicide, but operating
without registration is seen as a form of conspiracy.

To some extent NGOs shun registration via the NGO Board
because it is cumbersome and the rules are frustratingly unclear or applied in
a haphazard and arbitrary manner. And the actions of lower level ruling party
officials, such as RDCs and DISOs, are very hard to predict and require NGOs to
tread carefully, censoring their work in some instances where they fear
government backlash. This discourages NGOs from routinely reporting problems
during the registration process because of real fears of reprisals or future
obstructions during renewals.

Currently at least three NGOs have allegedly been told by
employees of the NGO Board that that security officials or agents from State
House have taken their application files for renewal for “further
examination.”[151]
Not only does this profoundly delay the renewal process for the NGOs involved,
but it heightens fear that NGOs work is under surveillance by the executive and
undermines the perception of the NGO Board as an agency that can create an
enabling environment and withstand pressure from powerful government actors.

Kangwagye stated his desire to protect NGO operating space
from intrusions. But in the current environment NGOs are unlikely to come to
the board with concerns without significant efforts from the board to build
trust.

VII. Uganda’s Obligations under International
Law

The rights to freedom of association and expression are well
established in international law, notably in the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[152]
and The African (Banjul) Charter for Human and Peoples’ Rights,[153]
both of which Uganda has ratified and is thereby legally bound to uphold.

Freedom of association is defined as the right of persons to
join together in groups in order to pursue common objectives or interests,
including joining organizations.[154]
Under international law restrictions on freedom of association are permissible
only on certain clearly specified grounds.[155] Limitations of the
right to freedom of association can be imposed in order to maintain
“public order” (ordre public)—rules that ensure the
peaceful functioning of society. Freedom of association may also be restricted
for “the protection of public health or morals.” Here, for any
restriction to be legitimate, “public health” should mean a
situation in which the activities of an association pose a serious threat to
the health of the population or individuals within it.[156] It
is important to underscore that well-accepted international principles have
indicated that governments must not use “notions of… public
morality… to restrict any exercise of the rights to public assembly and
association.”[157]

Restrictions on freedom of association must also be
“prescribed by law.”[158]
State authorities must therefore base their actions on legislation that is
already in existence. Procedural formalities for recognition of associations
must not be so burdensome as to amount to substantive restrictions on the right
to freedom of association.

The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders further spells
out the rights of individuals, groups, and associations working for human
rights in the broadest sense.[159]
The declaration provides guidance as to what should be permissible in the area
of freedom of association. For example, for the purpose of promoting and
protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, everyone has the right,
individually and in association with others, at the national and international
levels, to meet or assemble peacefully; to form, join, and participate in nongovernmental
organizations, associations, or groups; and to communicate with nongovernmental
or intergovernmental organizations.[160]

Like freedom of association, Uganda is obligated to respect
the right to freedom of expression of all persons under international law. The ICCPR
imposes legal obligations on states to protect freedom of expression and
information.[161]
Some restrictions on free speech—such as criminalizing incitement to
violence—are permitted under international law in the context of
protecting national security, but such restrictions must meet several high
hurdles.[162]

On freedom of expression the Banjul Charter in article 9
states that “every individual shall have the right to receive
information” and that “every individual shall have the right to
express and disseminate his opinions within the law.”[163] The
African Commission’s 2002 Declaration of Principles on Freedom of
Expression in Africa sets out regional norms guaranteeing free expression.[164]
The ACHPR has held that governments should not enact provisions which limit
freedom of expression “in a manner that override constitutional
provisions or undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the [Banjul Charter]
and other international human rights documents.”[165]

A group of experts in international law, national security,
and human rights issued the Johannesburg Principles on National Security,
Freedom of Expression and Access to Information on October 1, 1995.[166]
Over time these principles have come to be widely recognized as an
authoritative interpretation of the relationship between these rights and
interests, reflecting the growing body of international legal opinion and
emerging customary international law on the subject. The principles set out
guidelines on restrictions on free speech, including the principle that
governments must use the least restrictive means possible in prohibiting speech
that is contrary to legitimate national security interests.[167]
According to the principles national security interests do not include
“protect[ing] a government from embarrassment or exposure of
wrongdoing.”[168]

Various human rights bodies and courts around the world have
determined that protection of freedom of expression must include tolerance from
public officials regarding open criticism.[169] As the African
Commission stated, “People who assume highly visible public roles must
necessarily face a higher degree of criticism than private citizens; otherwise
public debate may be stifled altogether.”[170] And,
as the United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated, “the legitimate
objective of safeguarding and indeed strengthening national unity under
difficult political circumstances cannot be achieved by attempting to muzzle
advocacy of multiparty democracy, democratic tenets and human rights.”[171]

Acknowledgements

This report was researched and written by Maria Burnett,
senior researcher in the Africa Division of Human Rights Watch. Africa Division
associate Jamie Vernaelde provided significant research and writing assistance.

The report was reviewed and edited by Leslie Lefkow, deputy
director of the Africa Division; Graeme Reid, director of the Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program; Aisling Reidy, senior legal advisor;
and Babatunde Olugboji, deputy Program director. Jamie Vernaelde also provided
editing and production assistance, and the report was prepared for publication
by Grace Choi, publications director, and Fitzroy Hepkins, production manager.

Human Rights Watch wishes to thank the many individuals who
agreed to be interviewed and who provided time and substantive input to this
research.

[2]
Some dispute the quality of the elections as a genuine expression of the
citizenry and argue voters were often bought off by the ruling party, which
clearly spent overwhelming sums of money during the campaign period. See
forthcoming research from the French Institute for Research in Africa,
“Election Observatory in Eastern Africa,” Ouganda 2011,
http://www.ifra-nairobi.net/observatory.html.

[3]
Some analysts believe President Museveni and his party spent US$350 million for
his campaign, the majority of it from state coffers. In January 2011 parliament
passed a US$250 million supplementary budget, allegedly spent on the campaigns.
Parliament also awarded each parliamentarian US$8,500 just before the election.
Joe Powell, “Money talks in Ugandan election,” Royal African
Society, February 25, 2012,
http://www.royalafricansociety.org/component/content/816.html?view=article
(accessed July 21, 2012).

[9]
“Civil Society Seeks Independent Inquiry into Killings,” Human
Rights Watch news release, June 15, 2011,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/06/15/uganda-civil-society-seeks-independent-inquiry-april-killings.
In the case of the killing of a 2 year old girl in Masaka, one member of the
military reserve force and an alleged accomplice were put on trial before the
military’s General Court Martial in Makindye, Kampala. That case is still
in trial but has met with significant delays due to the availability and
changes of the court’s leadership. No other arrests or trials for the
April 2011 protest killings have taken place.

[13]
The case argues that by not providing “essential medical commodities and
health services to pregnant women, the government is violating the
constitutional rights of Ugandans, including the right to health, the right to
life, and the rights of women.” See Center for Health Human Right and
Development, “Constitutional Court begins hearing maternal deaths
case,” September 5, 2011,
http://www.cehurd.org/2011/09/constitutional-court-begins-hearing-maternal-deaths-case-3/
(accessed July 21, 2012). An appeal is soon to be filed before the Supreme
Court.

[14]
There were at least two teacher’s strikes in 2011 and one in 2012.
Faustine Odeke and Godfrey Ojore, “Uganda: Teachers Defy Minister, Go On
Strike,” The New Vision (Kampala), July 16, 2012.

[15]
“Death threats for Kampala bishop,” The Church of England
Newspaper, April 22, 2012, p. 5; and David Kazungu, “Museveni
quarrels with Bishop over term limits,” The Observer (Kampala),
June 17, 2012,
http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19323:museveni-quarrels-with-bishop-over-term-limits-&catid=78:topstories&Itemid=116
(accessed July 21, 2012).

[17]
“The NGO Sector in Uganda, its Operating Environment and Relationship
with Government: A Brief for a meeting between representatives from the NGO
Sector and the 3rd Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Internal Affairs
– Hon. Kirunda Kivejinja,” Ministry of International Affairs
Boardroom, August 11, 2009, on file with Human Rights Watch, p. 4.

[22]
Many NGOs seek to avoid the government controls by registering as a company
limited by guarantee under the Companies Act. In this way, there is no renewal
process and there is recourse through the courts should there be problems.

[23]
Human Rights Watch interview with Arthur Larok, country representative for
Action Aid and former head of Uganda NGO Forum, Kampala, July 6, 2012. The NGO
Policy, though generally positive, contains some contradictions and has never
been fully launched by the Office of the Prime Minister, so it has not been
fully endorsed by government or implemented in practice.

[24]
The Nongovernmental Organisations Registration Act, Chapter 113 of 1989, art. 1(d).
Community Based Organizations (CBOs) are defined under the Local Government Act
(1997) and are required to register at district level, usually under the
Community Development Office of the district government.

[25]
There are various trade-offs between the two legal options and some NGOs
legally maintain status under both the NGO law and the Companies Act.

[27]
See Human Rights Watch, Open Secret: Illegal Detention and Torture by the
Joint Anti-terrorism Task Force in Uganda, April 8, 2009, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2009/04/07/open-secret-0;
and “State of Pain: Torture in Uganda,” March 29, 2004,
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/03/28/state-pain. See also US State Department,
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, “Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices for 2011: Uganda,” http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/186464.pdf.

[33]
In April 2009 eight NGOs filed a challenge to the Act before the Constitutional
court, arguing that some provisions are inconsistent with the constitution, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the East African
Community Treaty. The NGOs based their case on the following concerns:
mandatory registration; requirement of annual renewals of permits; NGO board
discretion to impose restrictions on organizations; board discretion to reject
NGO registration and renewal and to intervene subjectively and arbitrarily into
the operations of NGOs; requirements of burdensome registration pre-conditions;
provisions that make it conditional for NGOs to interact with the population,
particularly in terms of access to people in rural areas; and the fact that
sections of the NGO Act are contrary to international and regional legal norms
guaranteeing freedom of association. The case has been cause listed twice but
has never been argued due to a lack of quorum. It is not known when the hearing
will proceed The Republic of Uganda in the Constitutional Court of Uganda,
Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2009, Petition, April 1, 2009, on file with
Human Rights Watch.

[38]
Uganda National Council for Science and Technology, “Research Registration
and Clearance Policy and Guidelines,” March 2007,
http://www.uncst.go.ug/dmdocuments/Guideline,%20Research%20Registration%20Guidelin.pdf
(accessed July 8, 2012).

[39]
Letter from NGO Board to ACODE, June 14, 2012, on file with Human Rights Watch.

[47]
Office of the President Media Centre, “Address to Parliament by H.E.
Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, President of Uganda, on Oil,” February 10, 2012,
http://www.mediacentre.go.ug/details.php?catId=6&item=1566

[57]
Uganda Governance Monitoring Platform, “Background to the Citizens
Manifesto: Putting Citizens at the Forefront of Shaping a Democratic and
Accountable Political System in Uganda,” March 2010, on file with Human
Rights Watch.

[61]
Minutes of the meeting in the office of the RDC LIRA between district security
team and organizers of public discussion of presidential term limits in Lira,
May 23, 2012. Minutes of the meeting between Central North Regional Police Officers
and Organising Committee of Public Discussion on Restoration of presidential
term limits in Lira, June 5, 2012, on file with Human Rights Watch.

[66]The
report argues that “the poorest people are being hardest hit as
competition for land intensifies” and that “residents regularly
lose out to local elites and domestic or foreign investors because they lack
the power to claim their rights effectively and to defend and advance their
interests.” For more see Oxfam, “Land and Power: The growing
scandal surround the new wave of investments in land,” September 22,
2011, http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/land-and-power-the-growing-scandal-surrounding-the-new-wave-of-investments-in-l-142858
(accessed August 10, 2012).

[68]
Office of the President Media Centre, “Clarification by the Government of
Uganda Regarding the Case Study by Oxfam International Titled: The New Forests
Company and Its Uganda Plantations of 22 September 2011 Alledging [sic] Land
Grabing [sic],” November 4, 2011,
http://www.mediacentre.go.ug/details.php?catId=1&item=1431 (accessed July
16, 2012).

[70]
The National NGO Board, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Government of Uganda,
“Report on Alleged De-Campaigning of the New Forest Company Limited by
Oxfam GB and Uganda Land Alliance in Kiboga and Mubende District,” no
date, on file with Human Rights Watch, p. 5.

[84]
The directive was allegedly issued by the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry
of Energy and Mineral Development Kabagambe Kaliisa stating that any NGO doing
advocacy or research in the Albertine rift must first get clearance from the
ministry. See National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE)
Lobby, Geoffrey Kamese and Lilian Komugisha, “Government plots to stop
NGOs from working in oil region in Uganda,” September 2010, p. 6.; see
also Haggai Matsiko, “Acode Under Investigation,” The Independent
(Kampala), April 9, 2012,
http://www.independent.co.ug/news/news-analysis/5549-acode-under-investigation
(accessed July 16, 2012).

[89]
Geoffrey Kamese and Lilian Komugisha, “Government plots to stop NGOs from
working in oil region in Uganda,” National Association of Professional
Environmentalists (NAPE) Lobby, September 2010, p. 6; Oil in Uganda,
“Advocates fear ‘shrinking space’ over land row,”
http://www.oilinuganda.org/features/civil-society/advocates-fear-shrinking-space-over-land-row-but-grassroots-groups-say-business-as-usual-in-oil-regions.html.

[100]
The version of the bill that was re-tabled in 2012 in parliament was identical
to the version of the bill initially tabled in 2009. For more on the
Anti-Homosexuality Bill, see “Uganda: ‘Anti-Homosexuality’
Bill Threatens Liberties and Human Rights Defenders,” Human Rights Watch
news release, October 15, 2009,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/10/15/uganda-anti-homosexuality-bill-threatens-liberties-and-human-rights-defenders.
At the time of writing, there is a very preliminary proposal allegedly from the
Ministry of Gender, Labour, and Social Development which would adopt some
provisions of the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill into a larger project to
amend the penal code.

[104]
Parliament’s Legal and Parliamentary Affairs committee held public
hearings on the bill in May 2011 and issued a set of recommendations that
failed to take into account the range of critiques. The bill lapsed in the
previous parliament and Bahati subsequently reintroduced it in January 2012. At
the time of going to press it is likely to be back before the Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs Committee in late 2012.

[105]
Human Rights Watch interviews with members of the international diplomatic
community, 2010-2012.

[106]
Former Minister of State for Ethics and Integrity James Nsaba Buturo was a
leading proponent of the bill and often cited as the lead champion of its
passage. He also obstructed NGO work. For example, on November 17, 2010, he
issued a directive to Lake Victoria Serena Hotel not to host the African
Women’s Leadership Institute for sex worker rights activists, stating
that hosting the meeting would amount to “promoting and defending a
criminal act,” and that the hotel would be “an accomplice in an
illegality.” The hotel cancelled the event, led by Akina Mama wa Afrika,
and made participants leave.

[107]
Human Rights Watch interview with Hon. Simon Lokodo, Minister of State for
Ethics and Integrity, Kampala, July 9, 2012. According to Lokodo, his office is
mandated to “coordinate government efforts to fight corruption, provide
political representation in the fight against corruption, set ethical standards
for rebuilding ethics and integrity in public office, formulate Anti-Corruption
Policies and Legislation to guide agencies and their activities, and monitor
the observance of ethical standards and anti-corruption legislation.”
Brochure of the Directorate for Ethics and Integrity, Office of the President,
“Rebuilding Ethics and Integrity,” on file with Human Rights Watch.
For more information, see Directorate for Ethics and Integrity, Office of the
President, http://www.dei.go.ug/ (accessed August 10, 2012).

[117]
US State Department, “Winners of the Human Rights Defenders Award,”
Office of the Spokesperson, Washington DC, May 18, 2012,
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/05/190315.htm (accessed July 9, 2012).

[120]
Under Uganda’s 1995 constitution the president appoints members of his
cabinet from those elected to parliament and of a number “reasonably
necessary for the efficient running of the State.” The Constitution of
the Republic of Uganda, 1995, art. 111. The Directorate for Ethics and
Integrity is not a cabinet-level ministry and there is no place in
Uganda’s laws which grants that position any legal powers. The mandate of
this role has been unclear and ad-hoc since it was created in the late 1990s.

[123]
Office of the President Media Centre, “Response to International
Criticism on the Arrest of Gay Activists,” June 21, 2012,
http://www.mediacentre.go.ug/details.php?catId=3&item=1728 (accessed July
9, 2012).

[143]
Uganda National NGO Forum, “Towards a Supportive Legal Environment for
Publically Accountable NGOs in Uganda,” A Consolidated NGO Memorandum for
the Review of the NGO Act CAP 113 (as Amended), July 2011, on file with Human
Rights Watch.

[144]
The Democratic Governance Facility is a basket fund of money contributed by Austria, Denmark, the European Union Delegation,
Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. For
more see Democratic Governance Facility, www.dgf.ug/ (accessed July 21, 2012). Minister
of Internal Affairs, Briefing Note, The Uganda NGO sector policy and regulatory
framework: The Role of the NGO Board and its strategic direction, no date, on file
with Human Rights Watch.

[153]
African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted June 27,
1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force
October 21, 1986, ratified by Uganda May 10, 1986. Additionally, in March 1992,
the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR, or African
Commission) adopted a resolution on the right to freedom of association,
concluding that authorities should not override constitutional provisions or
undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution and international
standards; authorities should not enact provisions which would limit the
exercise of this freedom; and that the regulation of the exercise of the right
to freedom of association should be consistent with the state’s obligations
under the ACHPR. ACHPR, “Resolution on the Right to Freedom of
Association,” 5th Annual Report, Tunis, Tunisia, from 2 to 9 March 1992,
http://www.achpr.org/sessions/11th/resolutions/5/ (accessed July 4, 2012),
ratified by Uganda 1986, p. 137.

[155]
Certain other requirements are necessary under international law to justify
freedom of association restrictions. Notably, restrictions can only be imposed
if they meet the standard of being “necessary in a democratic
society.” This implies that the limitation must respond to a pressing
public need and be oriented along the basic democratic values of pluralism and
tolerance. The term “necessary” also contains the principle of
proportionality. It requires a careful balancing of the intensity of a measure
with the specific reason for the limitation. In applying a limitation, a state
is to use no more restrictive means than are required for the achievement of
the purpose of the limitation. The dissolution of an association or the
prohibition of its formation, as the severest type of restriction on freedom of
association, should constitute an ultimate sanction, and may be imposed only
when lesser measures of restriction are insufficient. ICCPR, art. 22.

[157]
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Yogyakarta Principles –
Principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to
sexual orientation and gender identity, March 2007, prin. 20.b.

[159]
UN General Assembly, Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of
Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally
Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, resolution adopted by the
General Assembly, 8 March 1999, A/RES/53/144.

[161]
ICCPR, art. 19. 1) “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions
without interference. 2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of
expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in
writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his
choice.

[162]
Similarly to freedom of association, the permissible restrictions for freedom
of expression are: (a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b)
for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or
of public health or morals. First, restrictions must be prescribed by law, and
they must be accessible, clear, narrowly drawn, and subject to judicial
scrutiny. Second, the restriction must have both the genuine purpose and the
demonstrable effect of protecting national security. Third, the restriction
must apply only where the expression poses a serious threat, is the least
restrictive means available, and is compatible with democratic principles.
ICCPR, art. 19(3).

[164]
Uganda is a member of the African Union, the successor to the Organization of
African Unity (OAU), whose commission adopted the 2002 Declaration of Principles
on Freedom of Expression at its 32nd Ordinary Session in Banjul, the Gambia,
from October 17-23, 2002.

[166]
The Johannesburg Principles set out standards for the protection of freedom of
expression in the context of national security laws. They were adopted on
October 1, 1995, by a group of experts in international law, national security,
and human rights. They have been endorsed by the UN Special Rapporteur on
Freedom of Opinion and Expression and referred to by the Commission in their
annual resolutions on freedom of expression every year since 1996. Johannesburg
Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression, and Access to
Information (Johannesburg Principles), adopted on October 1, 1995,
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/johannesburg.html (accessed April 27, 2010).